' This writ petition arises out of order dated 26-1-1980 of the learned District Judge, Gujranwala whereby he accepted the appeal filed by respondent No,1 against order dated 19-7-1979 of the learned Rent Controller, Gujranwala and directed petitioner's ejectment from the shop in dispute.
2. The relevant facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that respondent No,1 sought ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop on the grounds that he had committed default in payment of monthly rent and that she required the same for the use of her son Riaz Hussain. The petitioner resisted the eviction petition and raised preliminary objection denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller recorded evidence of the parties on the preliminary issue and directed peitioner's ejectment on 22-1-1979. The petitioner being aggrieved against the aforesaid order preferred appeal before the learned appellate authority which was allowed on 18-4-1979 and the case was remanded to the learned Controller with the direction to re-record the statements of Riaz Hussain and Fayyaz Hussain A .Ws. And decide the case in accordance with law.
' In pursuance of the aforesaid order the learned Rent Controller recorded their statements and dismissed the ejectment petition on 19-7-1979 holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. Respondent No,1 challenged the aforesaid order in appeal which was accepted vide the impugned order dated 26-1-1980 of the learned District Judge, Gujranwala and the petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the disputed shop on or before 1-3-1980. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ejectment petition filed by respondent No,1 on 25-1-1978 was premature because the petitioner did not commit default in payment of rent for the month of December, 1977 and January, 1978 as alleged in the petition. It was next contended that in fact the shop in dispute was given on rent to the petitioner by Riaz Hussain P.W. He had been receiving rent from him, therefore, he was landlord within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the application filed by respondent No,1 was not competent. In support of this submission learned counsel relied on receipts executed by Riaz Hussain for the rent received by him in respect of the shop in dispute. It was also submitted that the learned District Judge had erred to ignore the relevant material on the record which established that respondent No,1 was neither landlady nor the petitioner tenant under her.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting-respondent opposed this petition and submitted that the learned District Judge after evaluating the evidence on record had come to a finding of fact, that the respondent was owner/landlady and the petitioner was tenant under her, in the disputed shop, as such, this Court would not interfere in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. It was also pointed out that the evidence on record has established that the petitioner contumaciously denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and therefore, forfeited his right to prove that he committed no default in payment of rent to the landlady.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The petitioner in his written statement categorically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He did not specifically plead that he had obtained the shop in dispute on rent from Riaz Hussain and that he had been paying rent to him or that he was his landlord. In evidence, however, he attempted to show that he had been paying rent to Riaz Hussain and placed on record some receipts executed by him in that behalf. The learned District Judge after -evaluating evidence on the record and particularly relying on the statements of Muhammad Suleman (A.W.1) and Ahmad Din (A.W.2) came to the conclusion that in fact respondent No,1 was owner/landlady of the disputed property and had been receiving rent through her sons Riaz Hussain and Fayyaz Hussain. He also took into consideration that the respondent No,1 being a lady and keeping in view the custom and traditions of our society did not directly deal with the petitioner in presence of her grown up sons. He had further taken into consideration the receipts issued by them but came to the conclusion that mere execution of receipts by them did not confer upon them status of being landlords of the property.
' The other contention of the learned counsel that the ejectmen petition was premature on account of rent for the months of December, 1977 and January, 1978 paid by the petitioner before the date of filin ejectment petition viz. 25-1-1978 is also of no force. The petitioner did not acknowledge her as his landlady nor asserted in the written statemen A that he had paid rent to her. The petitioner, therefore, would be estopped to set up a new case that he paid her rent through Riaz Hussain. No indulgence, could be shown in his favour when he had repudiated in the written statement the very contents of paragraph 2 of the ejectment petition.
6. The perusal of the evidence on the record established that th learned District Judge committed no error of law and fact in evaluating the evidence on the record and directing petitioner's ejectment fro the disputed shop. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge in exercise of hi jurisdiction.
7. There is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.